rights have been and are being violated, and that the defendants are in violation of the federal antitrust laws and the Federal Trade Commission statute. He seeks injunctive and other forms of relief. The defendants have filed motions to dismiss.
Plaintiff's claims against NCCPA under the Civil Rights statutes are easily resolved: although its certifications are relied upon by many states in their licensing decisions, NCCPA is a private organization. It receives no financial support from any government, and it operates in all respects on a completely independent basis. In short, it is not a state actor, and does not act under color of state law within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act. Even if plaintiff were able to allege that his constitutional rights have been violated by the NCCPA, he would have no claim cognizable in this court for such constitutional violation.
I hasten to add that plaintiff's own allegations make clear that no constitutional violation has occurred. He has no vested right to certification, no property entitlement to renewal of his certification or of his license which could form the basis of a claim for violation of due process; and, in any event, he was accorded due process. He has no valid claim under the Equal Protection clause, because he has been treated in precisely the same manner as all others similarly situated; moreover, no racial or other invidious discrimination is, or could be, alleged.
Although the Commonwealth defendants do act under color of state law, the facts alleged by plaintiff disclose that they have not violated his constitutional rights. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a right to enforce its licensing regulations in a non-discriminatory manner. Insistence upon current NCCPA certification is rationally related to the permissible goals of the regulations, and reliance upon NCCPA testing and certification cannot be deemed arbitrary or capricious.
Finally, it is clear that plaintiff has no valid claims against any of the defendants under the antitrust laws. The Commonwealth defendants are immune from antitrust liability under "state action" principles. In any event, it is self-evident that plaintiff has suffered no injury of the type which the antitrust laws were designed to prevent, and that the conduct alleged on the part of each and all of the defendants does not amount to any violation of the antitrust laws. Although it is unclear just what provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 41 et seq. plaintiff is invoking, and it seems that no violation has been validly alleged, the matter need not be pursued, since there is no private right of action under that statute.
For all of the foregoing reasons, this action must be dismissed, with prejudice.
AND NOW, this 6th day of November, it is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED.
2. Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.